Darwin's theory of evolution is a good explanation for the complexity of nature compared to ID

Sure will, envisage.

That's sux man. Could you PM AirMax then and we could get this debate deleted and reinstated at a later date?

Envisage, I've caught the flu and can't debate right now.

I have to forfeit.

Though it was funny how Scientists never realized this in the 80s.

The Creationists would Flatter the Scientist and state how great their opposition is in the Science world and how much an expert they are in Evolution, but instead of denying it, the scientists would accept the praise and thank the Creationists for their appraisal.
Not realizing that the aim of the praise is to exalt the Creationist's position as scientific.
Yes, Scientists were never good debaters in those days.
They didn't see the subtle games being played out.
Now they have become much wiser.

@ Envisage, that's cool!
I was just a little concerned you may approach the debate by asserting Scientific Authority. So my concerns are unfounded. Though in such debates the Creationist often tries to exalt their opposition to such a position so to boost their own credibility. Ham tried this on Nye, and Nye had to pull himself back down to being just a Science fan.
I've been studying Creationist/Evolutionist debates since the 1980s and so often the Creationist will try and paint their opposition as being Authoritative Scientists, so to give themselves creds.
So I've also trolled Creationist forums since they first started pushing their concepts on the Internet, argue and debate with them as a nobody, for that very reason.
So essentially we are on the same page.

"Well Arctimes, that's just your poorly informed opinion. Envisage is an actual scientist and doesn't have a problem with the defintions, so whatever."

Because he doesn't need it to be called a theory to win the debate. You could call evolution a "guess" and if evolution is a better explanation than ID, then he wins. That doesn't change the fact that the definition is wrong and it's kind of retarded.... I mean, we are talking about 2 different steps lol.

@Sagey

I don't give a crap. I debate for the hell of it. Moreover I am no biologist, so it isn't as if I am a representative of the theory of evolution, nor do I accept this debate as a scientist, I accept this debate as a member of DDO who thinks ID is ridiculous.

I don't think I have ever debated evolution before bottom-up, so should be fun and new.

BTW: Debating them is considered as giving them an appearance of having credibility.
So to give Trolls cred is not considered as a good approach.
This is why scientists were against the Nye vs Ham debate.
Even though Nye beat Ham easily, it still gives Ham scientific Cred, which he does not have.

Best way is to remove their cred by banning their nonsense.
Just as the British Government recently did and hopefully the United States will follow.

Most Scientists never debate Creationists/Intelligent Design advocates.
Especially those in the Evolution fields, as I worked in Horticulture and as a lab technician at a university where most the Scientists that I worked with who are all Evolutionists and many also Christian, don't even know Creationism exists. The professor I worked under was totally devoid of any recent events concerning Creationism, as when I mentioned Creationism, his response was: "They still exist, do they?" As far as he was concerned, he last heard of them in his student years in the early 1980s.

So most Scientists consider debating with Creationists as a Total Waste Of Time.
They consider it as "Feeding The Trolls".
Because that is how Creationists appear to Scientists, as nothing else but Trolls.
As the don't present their poorly conceived Evidences through proper scientific channels, but use it to attack Evolution through the Media. Which is the way Trolls work.
So Creationists continually resort to Troll Tactics to push their unsupported Evidences.
Scientists would be happy to test their Evidences to see if it is Valid evidence against Evolution.
Because Science is all about Disproving Theories, so they love anything that would genuinely disprove any theory, as that is how scientists prove things, by trying to disprove them.
That is the scientific Method, If you cannot disprove something, then it is considered as Proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Disproving Theories is what makes the work of Scientists exciting.
We would welcome anything that genuinely disproves Evolution.
So far, Creationists/ID Evangelists have Disappointed Us With Their Evidences.
They have all Failed.
Which is disappointing to scientists.

@installgentoo The only poorly informed opinion is yours. There is not a single credible scientist that would agree with your definition of evolution. Why? Because it is not a hypothesis. That is not an opinion.

If Envisage is a scientist then he too knows your definition is wrong. He simply knows that he can win even with your ridiculous definitions.